Evolutionary Tree

[Mister Agenda]

There you go again.  It's not like correcting you will stop you...but here we go..again.

Common descent is not -assumed- by, or required in, current evolutionary theory, it's a -conclusion- of current evolutionary theory which is overwhelmingly in-evidence.

It is not just a conclusion, it is a necessary conclusion that has wrapped within it many threads that if pulled away will unravel much of the general theory--or at least have to rethink vast stretches of it. So we have a necessary conclusion that is used to as a foundation for ancillary theories that support the conclusion. Would that make it more like an assumption or just circular reasoning. 

And so the link I posted earlier from Sean Carroll, the one that illustrates the difficulties that genetics have introduced to establishing a phylogenetic tree, has no bearing why? Because common decent is a conclusion from overwhelming evidence so we don't have to worry about some facts that don't seem to support the theory right now. (did I use those words correctly this time?)

The conclusion is only necessitated by the mounds of evidence for it. As I have said, we could find a species tomorrow with clear evidence for uncommon descent and it wouldn't invalidate the theory a bit, it would just mean there's another evolutionary tree. Btw, I don't blame you for avoiding trying to refute that point. It's awfully inconvenient to your assertions, after all, and pretty iron-clad, best to ignore it.

Good on you for finally making the slightest effort to be clear, you should be proud.